SynthesisMedicine2020
Carbapenems versus alternative β-lactams monotherapy or in combination for febrile neutropenia: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFebrile neutropenia (FN) in cancer patients can be life threatening and require the timely antimicrobial agents treatment.
methodsTo compare the effectiveness and safety of carbapenems versus β-lactams for FN. PubMed, Medline (Ovid SP), Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase were searched up to March 2019. FN in patients due to undergoing chemotherapy and treated with carbapenems and β-lactams were included. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated.
resultsFifty randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studies involving 10,995 participants were included. Carbapenems were more likely to experience treatment success without modification (OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.24-1.46) compared with β-lactams. Meropenem (OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.18-1.56; OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.01-1.53), imipenem/cilastatin (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.19-1.65; OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.04-1.67) showed higher effectiveness from that by β-lactams monotherapy or in combination with aminoglycoside, respectively. Carbapenems-aminoglycoside combination therapy does not provide an advantage over carbapenems alone. Meropenem showed similar risk of adverse events (AEs) versus β-lactams. Imipenem/cilastatin was related to higher risk of AEs compared with β-lactams. There was no significant difference between carbapenems and β-lactams monotherapy or in combination.
conclusionMeropenem and imipenem/cilastatin monotherapy appears to be available treatment for FN compared with β-lactams. Imipenem/cilastatin was related to higher risk of AEs. Balancing the evidence for drug efficacy and side effects, meropenem monotherapy appears to be available treatment for FN. Individual centers should select the best matching therapy regimens according to local epidemiology and susceptibility patterns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.